In theory I agree with this, but in practise I personally think “Risk-neutral EV maximisation” can lead to bets which are far worse than they appear to be. This is because I think we often massively overrate the EV of “hits based approaches”.
Generally I think the lower probability of a bet, the higher chance there is of that EV being wrong and lower than stated. I’m keen to see evidence of high risk bets turning out well once in a while before I’m convinced that they really do have the claimed EVs...
Then your issue is with systemically flawed reasoning overestimating the likelihood of low-probability events. The solution for that would be to adjust by some factor that adjusts for this systemic epistemic bias, and then proceed with risk-neutral EV maximization (again, with the caveats that I had mentioned in my initial comment).
In theory I agree with this, but in practise I personally think “Risk-neutral EV maximisation” can lead to bets which are far worse than they appear to be. This is because I think we often massively overrate the EV of “hits based approaches”.
Generally I think the lower probability of a bet, the higher chance there is of that EV being wrong and lower than stated. I’m keen to see evidence of high risk bets turning out well once in a while before I’m convinced that they really do have the claimed EVs...
Then your issue is with systemically flawed reasoning overestimating the likelihood of low-probability events. The solution for that would be to adjust by some factor that adjusts for this systemic epistemic bias, and then proceed with risk-neutral EV maximization (again, with the caveats that I had mentioned in my initial comment).